↓ Skip to main content

Efficacies of Cabotegravir and Bictegravir against drug-resistant HIV-1 integrase mutants

Overview of attention for article published in Retrovirology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacies of Cabotegravir and Bictegravir against drug-resistant HIV-1 integrase mutants
Published in
Retrovirology, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12977-018-0420-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven J. Smith, Xue Zhi Zhao, Terrence R. Burke, Stephen H. Hughes

Abstract

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are the class of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs most recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of HIV-1 infections. INSTIs block the strand transfer reaction catalyzed by HIV-1 integrase (IN) and have been shown to potently inhibit infection by wild-type HIV-1. Of the three current FDA-approved INSTIs, Dolutegravir (DTG), has been the most effective, in part because treatment does not readily select for resistant mutants. However, recent studies showed that when INSTI-experienced patients are put on a DTG-salvage therapy, they have reduced response rates. Two new INSTIs, Cabotegravir (CAB) and Bictegravir (BIC), are currently in late-stage clinical trials. Both CAB and BIC had much broader antiviral profiles than RAL and EVG against the INSTI-resistant single, double, and triple HIV-1 mutants used in this study. BIC was more effective than DTG against several INSTI-resistant mutants. Overall, in terms of their ability to inhibit a broad range of INSTI-resistant IN mutants, BIC was superior to DTG, and DTG was superior to CAB. Modeling the binding of CAB, BIC, and DTG within the active site of IN suggested that the "left side" of the INSTI pharmacophore (the side away from the viral DNA) was important in determining the ability of the compound to inhibit the IN mutants we tested. Of the two INSTIs in late stage clinical trials, BIC appears to be better able to inhibit the replication of a broad range of IN mutants. BIC retained potency against several of the INSTI-resistant mutants that caused a decrease in susceptibility to DTG.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 31 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 12%
Chemistry 8 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 36 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,514,052
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from Retrovirology
#780
of 1,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,604
of 327,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Retrovirology
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.